Carney v. Simmonds
California Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
SCHAUER, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.—I concur in the judgment, and am in general accord with the opinion of Mr. Justice Carter except insofar as it holds that plaintiff’s first amended complaint in its present form states a cause of action for extrinsic fraud. In my view, even the most liberal construction of the allegations relating to fraud which appear in plaintiff’s first amended complaint does not render those allegations sufficient to state a cause of action based on extrinsic fraud.
The first amended complaint alleges, in material part, as follows: “Plaintiff is informed and believes…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Findley v. GarrettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Stiebel v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Dowling v. Spring Valley Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Mason v. San-Val Oil & Water Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1934